Reviews:
 ·Shaw
 ·TELUS
| Am I only one who thinks a la carte would be worse? I've oftened wonder if a la carte would be worse? Say everyone gets 100 channels.. and I like maybe 20.. some likes a different 20.. lots overlap.. but in essence paying for a while package we subsidize each other tastes and when the odd program comes on a different channel then its a bonus.
If everything went pure a la carte. people would just buy the channels like they liked, but then no one who did't like it would be contributing.. therefore you'd have to pay more for that channel.. making channels more expensive.. so in the end you'd get less channels for similar amounts of money?
I don't get how a la carte could benefit people unless they only want 3 channels... |
|
 BF69Premium
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN | First I have never heard ANY proposal on ala carte were ala carte would be a REPLACEMENT for the current situation. it wuld be an ADDITIONAL choice. Those who like geting 70+ channels 80% of which they never watch for $50 a month still can. those that rather have fewer and save money could do that. I can't see how MORE choice is BAD. Would I be paying more per channel with ala carte? Sure, but I would also be geting less channels thus SAVING money. Maybe I'll only have andbe paying $40 a month. Now sure that might only be $10 saving, but I'm actually getting the channels I want and I've got an extra $120 a year in my pocket.
The only people that would be against it are those that want things to staythe same because their bills might go up slightly. Well I'm sorry if they are losing my subsidy. If they want communism they can move to Cuba. |
|
Tim2Premium
join:2006-06-19 | said by BF69:First I have never heard ANY proposal on ala carte were ala carte would be a REPLACEMENT for the current situation. it wuld be an ADDITIONAL choice. Those who like geting 70+ channels 80% of which they never watch for $50 a month still can. It's just not possible that there would be an option to continue service at it is. If there was a 25% opt out rate for ESPN from basic service, the other 75% of subscribers would have to cover the cost. If there was a 90% opt out rate for The History Channel, the other 90% would have to cover those costs.
It's a lose-lose situation for the consumer. |
|
